DOS 7.1 and DJGPP

[Ethan Rosenberg]

Which binaries should I download to run DJGPP on a DOS 7.1 computer?

I know the following is not a regular part of our listserve, but
maybe someone could help or direct me to the correct source:

I have a large number of my C programs on 5.5" floppies. Is it
possible to use an IDE controller for a 5.5" floppy drive?

Much thanks.

Ethan Rosenberg

[DJ Delorie]

> Which binaries should I download to run DJGPP on a DOS 7.1 computer?

Probably Win95, so the 2.03 binaries would be fine.

> I have a large number of my C programs on 5.5" floppies. Is it
> possible to use an IDE controller for a 5.5" floppy drive?

I hope you mean 5.25" floppies. They aren't IDE, they use the same
controller as 3.5" floppies.

[Florian Xaver]

On Thu, 23 Aug 2007 05:15:29 +0200, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:

>
>> Which binaries should I download to run DJGPP on a DOS 7.1 computer?
> Probably Win95, so the 2.03 binaries would be fine.

Could you update this item with FreeDOS and Dr-DOS? Or a second item with
"DOS, which supports LFN"?

Thanks
Flo

[Ethan Rosenberg]

++++++
Thank you.

I mean the DOS only component of Windows 98. This results in a DOS
only computer, using FAT32, which will support long file names and
which will not have to be partitioned into 2 GB partitions.

Ethan

[Nico Roosnek]

I run djgpp under Win98 and DOS 6.22. No difference at all.
I use all old (CC 3.44, etc)
Nico

[DJ Delorie]

> Could you update this item with FreeDOS and Dr-DOS? Or a second item with
> "DOS, which supports LFN"?

Assuming you mean the zip picker, why? Does it change the list of
things you need (mostly, cwsdpmi), or the installation instructions
(mostly environment variables)?

[rug...@gmail.com]

Yeah, the ZIP Picker still recommends 2.03p2 for XP, what gives? ;-)

I think he meant which binaries are best for FreeDOS or DR-DOS (but I
could be wrong). DJGPP 2.04 beta has better support for FAT32 (e.g.
statfs, _creat, _open), and since EDR-DOS and FreeDOS support that, I
assume it would be the preferred version (unless you don't need such,
e.g. only using FAT12, FAT16 like me).

DR-DOS 7.03 works fine with DJGPP and its programs for me, but didn't
OpenDOS 7.01 (which EDR-DOS is based) have problems re: their DPMI
server? Anyways, CWSDPMI is better in some ways (swapping) and
*usually* most DJGPP programs were written for it (obviously not
FreeDOS' p7zip 4.42 compile, but anyways ...). So I would always
recommend getting it.

"DOS, which supports LFN"? Sounds like he means Datalight ROM DOS
(which supposedly? supports LFNs natively). Or he could mean e.g.
FreeDOS w/ DOSLFN. Either way, don't most packages work in either
case? You only have to unzip to SFN form if you want to use under both
SFN and LFN modes, right?

No extra environment variable changes are needed, AFAIK.

[Florian Xaver]

On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 01:23:18 +0200, <rug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Aug 23, 10:06 am, DJ Delorie <d...@delorie.com> wrote:
>> > Could you update this item with FreeDOS and Dr-DOS? Or a second item
>> with
>> > "DOS, which supports LFN"?
>>
>> Assuming you mean the zip picker, why? Does it change the list of
>> things you need (mostly, cwsdpmi), or the installation instructions
>> (mostly environment variables)?
>
> Yeah, the ZIP Picker still recommends 2.03p2 for XP, what gives? ;-)
>
> I think he meant which binaries are best for FreeDOS or DR-DOS (but I
> could be wrong). DJGPP 2.04 beta has better support for FAT32 (e.g.
> statfs, _creat, _open), and since EDR-DOS and FreeDOS support that, I
> assume it would be the preferred version (unless you don't need such,
> e.g. only using FAT12, FAT16 like me).

Yes, this would be better, but there is no official release, so I don't
think that DJ wants to add this item :-)

> DR-DOS 7.03 works fine with DJGPP and its programs for me, but didn't
> OpenDOS 7.01 (which EDR-DOS is based) have problems re: their DPMI
> server? Anyways, CWSDPMI is better in some ways (swapping) and
> *usually* most DJGPP programs were written for it (obviously not
> FreeDOS' p7zip 4.42 compile, but anyways ...). So I would always
> recommend getting it.
>
> "DOS, which supports LFN"? Sounds like he means Datalight ROM DOS
> (which supposedly? supports LFNs natively). Or he could mean e.g.
> FreeDOS w/ DOSLFN. Either way, don't most packages work in either
> case? You only have to unzip to SFN form if you want to use under both
> SFN and LFN modes, right?
>
> No extra environment variable changes are needed, AFAIK.
>

Yes, there is no problem...but for newbies it would be better if they
would find FreeDOS, Enhanced Dr-DOS and Datalight ROM DOS in one item.

Publicity is important. And little things like I wrote above big
improvements for newbies. Other example: Sentences "Last update " at
bottom of the pages are also very interesting for someone who looks for a
compiler :-)

Bye
Flo